15:47:44 <LeeF> PROPOSED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard

PROPOSED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard←

15:48:13 <LeeF> RESOLVED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard

RESOLVED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard←

15:48:23 <LeeF> ISSUE-27: RESOLVED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard

Lee Feigenbaum: ISSUE-27: RESOLVED: To resolve ISSUE-27 in favor of SPARQL 1.1 Update WHERE clauses having the full expressivity of SPARQL 1.1 Query, noting that the WG will monitor implementation experience in this regard←

16:00:29 <Zakim> AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask whether you miss the ability to merge? Otherwise you could also FILTER on ?g ?

Zakim IRC Bot: AxelPolleres, you wanted to ask whether you miss the ability to merge? Otherwise you could also FILTER on ?g ?←

16:00:40 <chimezie> This capability is very important for us and generally I agree we should have parity with capabilities now and as they will be with regards to controlling granularity of managing graphs

Chimezie Ogbuji: This capability is very important for us and generally I agree we should have parity with capabilities now and as they will be with regards to controlling granularity of managing graphs←